1.

0 Introduction
During the 70s, M. A. K. Halliday devised a new grammar called Systemic Functional
Grammar (SFG) which demonstrates the relationship between the grammatical expressions
and their functions, and how they portray the real world in which they are used. In this
grammar, Halliday basically focused on the behavioural approach to language, the function of
language within the speech community and the purpose it serves among humans as to fulfill
their needs (be it physiological, psychological or social).

To achieve this, Halliday (1985) outlined three functions of language which are ideational,
textual and interpersonal. The ideational function is used to communicate the experiences of
the world. This deals with the content (information to be passed across) which is further
classified into Transitivity and Ergativity. The textual function is using language as a tool to
create texts; not just mere isolated or disconnected sentences. Here, logicality, coherence and
message cohesion are employed. It can also be further classified into thematic situation
(Theme and Rheme) and information structure (New and Given). Lastly, the interpersonal
function is the use of language to maintain social relations. This is subdivided into Mood and
Residue. These three functions are also referred to as language Metafunction.

Unlike non-SF approaches to language study and text analysis, SFG is concerned with how
external realities are presented in the text, processes involved, whether by actions, events or
states; the entities involved in the process and the circumstances in which they take place;
and more importantly, the phenomena of texts, how speakers communicate effectively and
manage language use in context (Banks, 2002). Among the tools used in SFG analyse this is
Transitivity.

2.0 Transitivity as a Concept in SFG

Speaking and writing come with a choice of words. Essentially, it's believed that verbs are the
souls of sentences which are carefully chosen by speakers or writers when constructing
clauses and sentences to make meaning. The analysis of verbs and their accompanying
words, according to Gibbons and Whiteley (2022), is known as Transitivity analysis.
Traditionally, when speaking about Transitivity, it either means a verb is followed by an
object (Transitive) or not followed by an object (Intransitive).

1
Later, a Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) approach to Transitivity gave a new
perspective into the term. It derives a new means to address verbs and their accompanying
participants that could be located in the clause. Halliday represented the new concept as a
further development of the old one. Here, Halliday, (2014) stated that three components are
essential to Transitivity process either it takes an object or not: the process itself, the
participants in the process and circumstances associated with the process.

Fontaine (2013) agreed that Transitivity is a salient concept in SFG because it often works as
the foundation for any analysis within the SFG framework. This demonstrates the fact that a
full analysis of a clause is derived from Transitivity. Even though Halliday and Methiesen
(2004) began the analysis of a clause through the textual metafunction, Fontaine (2013)
argued that the identification of Theme is determined by locating the clause first part to
'achieve experimental function' which cannot be attained until an understanding of
experimental meaning is gained (this is achieved through Transitivity). As such, Transitivity
is central to the body of the analysis of the clause. Hence, it is relating participating entities in
the clause. Same way, it's key to understanding textual meaning. Halliday (1994) states that
"transitivity translates the world of experience into a manageable set of process
types"(p.107).

3.0 Transitivity and Models

Bartley (2018) explored the system of transitivity as a common means by which isolated
clauses and clauses in contexts are analysed. He further examined that two transitive models
of Transitivity have emerged: Sydney Model (largely propounded by Halliday and
Methiesen, 1985, 1994, 2004, 2014) and Cardiff Grammar Model (put forward by Fawcett
and Neale, 1980, 1987, 2002, 2006).

While these models share a lot in common, there are some differences in their approaches.
For instance, both models agree on the fact that there are individual approach to language
use: one uses languages language base on one's worldview which is different from another
person's. And when messages are passed across with this differences, it comes with
individual perception and meaning.

2
More to this is that both the Sydney Model (SM) and the Cardiff Grammar Model (CG) of
Transitivity insist that clauses comprise of three key components which are the process (a
verbal group), a participant (a nominal group) and a circumstance (an adverbial or
prepositional phrase) as can be illustrated below:
(i) They woke up early.
They = participant
woke up = process
early = circumstance.
Here, it is important to stress that while both the participant and process are inherent part of
the structure, circumstance is optional. However, although both models agree on the naming,
what SM considers as circumstance is sometime labelled participant in the CG model. To
illustrate this, let's examine these two clauses as pointed out by Bartley (2018):
(i) They had behaved well (circumstance).
(ii) They had behaved well (participant).

It is important to also demonstrate here that both models don't agree in most cases on which
verb corresponds to the process of a clause in cases where more than one verb is realised.
Other differences in the approaches of the two models are in their naming of the six process
categories and the distribution of semantic roles to each process. Processes are central to
transitivity. The process centers on that part of the clause that is realized by the verbal group,
but it can also be regarded as what ‘goings-on’ are represented in the whole clause (Bloor and
Bloor, 1995). In the SM, the six process categories are material, mental, relational, verbal,
behavioural and existential. Note that Halliday considered the first three as the most
important of the six. Meanwhile, to the CG model, the naming is slightly different which are
action, mental, relational, influential, environmental and event-relating. These are illustrated
in the diagrams bellow but the focus will be on SM as it is the dominant model of analysis.

3
3.1. Processes
3.1.1 Material Process

Semantically, material processes indicate activities or events, which happen in the outside
world of human beings (Saragih, 2010). This process refers to physical experience of human
beings. Halliday (1994) stated that material processes are processes of ‘doing’. They express
the notion that some entity ‘does’ something – which may be done ‘to’ some other entity. So,
clauses with a material process obligatorily have a doing (process), a doer (participant I) and
an entity to which the process is extended or directed (participant II). Syntactically, the
unmarked tense associated to material process is the present continuous tense.

3.1.2 Mental Process

4
Mental processes refer to verbs indicating perception, cognition, affection, and desire
(Saragih, 2010). It enables language users to express opinion, thoughts and tastes that help to
identify their definitions of reality. This process type tends to be realized through the use of
verbs like think, know, feel, smell, hear, see, want, like, hate, please, repel, admire, enjoy,
fear.

Mental processes differ from Material ones in as much as the latter are physical, moving,
overt doings. Semantically, a mental process involves sense, which is inside the human or
conscious being. Mental process is related to psychological matters. The participant that is
related to the sense must be a conscious or human being. The person in whose mind the
mental process occurs is not really ‘acting’.

3.1.3 Relational Process

Relational process construes being and relation among entities through identification,
attribution, and possession (Saragih, 2010). The process occurs outside and inside human
being. Relational processes are typically realized by the verb ‘be’ or some verbs of the same
class (known as copular verbs). For examples, seem, become, appear, etc., or sometime by
verbs such as have, own, possess.

Halliday (1994) stated that relational process is divided into two modes: identifying relational
process and attributive relational process.
 Identifying Relational Process

In the identifying mode, something has an identity assigned to it. It means that one
entity is being used to identify another: ‘x is identified by a’, or ‘a serves to define the
identity of x’ (Halliday, 1994). Structurally, the x-element is labeled as identified,
which is to be identified, and the a-element is labeled as identifier, which serves an
identity. This mode is realized by the verbs: ‘be’ (is, am, are, was, were…), become,
etc.

 Attributive Relational Process

5
 Attributive relational processes are the processes which assign a quality. ‘a is an
attribute of x’. Other words, in this mode an entity has some quality ascribed or
attributed to it (Halliday, 1994). This type is realized by the verbs: sound, look, play,
cost, have, get, seem, etc.

3.1.4 Behavioural Process

Behavioural Processes are processes of physiological and psychological behaviour, like

breathing, dreaming, snoring, smiling, hiccupping, looking, watching, listening, and
pondering (Gerot & Wignel, 1994). They are the least distinct of all the six process types
because they have no clearly defined characteristics of their own; rather, they are partly like
the material and partly like the mental. Other words this type is the grey area between
material and mental processes. Typically, behavioural processes have only one participant
who is ‘behaving’: that is the human who is typically conscious being.

3.1.5 Verbal Process

Speaking is certainly a kind of action, and to some extent it would not be unreasonable to
treat as material process. On the other hand, it has some features of mental process, especially
if we believe that verbalization of thoughts is a kind of inner speech. A case can be made for
postulating a new category of process: verbal processes – verbs of ‘saying’. Saragih (2010)
stated that verbal processes show activities related to information. Specifically, the process
includes that of saying, commanding, asking, and offering.

3.1.6 Existential Process

Existential processes are processes of existence. These represent that something exists or
happens. According to Hancock (2005:240), existential process is a clause that presents an
entity as existing without predicating anything additional about it. Moreover, Saragih (2010)
stated that existential processes share features of relational process in the sense that the
common verb is BE (is, am, are, was, were, has, have been, etc.) and other verbs such as go,
come, toil, exist, remain, arise, occur, happen, take place.

The existential processes are normally recognizable because it is signaled by ‘there’. The

6
word ‘there’ is needed as subject, but it has no experiential meaning in a sense, its function is
to avoid the need for, or the possibility of, a second participant in the clause, because there is
only one participant inside.

3.2 Participants

According to Halliday (2004) "participants are inherent in the process: every experiential
type of clause has at least one participant and certain types have up to three
participants"(p.175). As shown previously, a process is realized by the verbal group.
Participant is realized by nominal group.
The table below is adopted from (Halliday, 2004, p.17).

Rashid & Jamel (2017) examined that there is more than one type of participants in process
clauses. To begin with material process, there are many types of participants .The first one is
what Halliday called 'Actor'. He (2004) states that "The Actor is an inherent participant in
both intransitive and transitive material clauses" (p.190). There is one 'Actor' in material
clause. The actor "brings about the unfolding of the process through time, leading to an
outcome that is different from the initial phase of the unfolding". The outcome may be
restricted to the actor itself; in this case there is only one participant inherent in the process.
In such case a 'material’ clause represents a happening and it is called intransitive material
clause. When the process is extended to another participant, it is called 'Goal', the outcome
impacts on it rather than on 'Actor'. Such a ‘material’ clause represents a doing and it is called
transitive. For example:
1. The man eat.
2. The man eat an apple.
The first one 'the man' is the Actor, 'eat' is a material process. It is called happening
represented by an intransitive material clause. The second, the man is the Actor', 'eat ' is a
material process. 'An apple' is the 'Goal'. It is called doing represented by a 'transitive'
material clause.

Additionally, there are other types of participant roles which are involved in the clauses of
material process. These are: Scope, Recipient, Client and Attribute. As denoted earlier, the
Goal is affected by the process of material, but the Scope of a ‘material’ clause is not in any

7
case affected by the process's performance. The Scope is restricted to ‘intransitive’ clauses
(Halliday, 2004). Examples are:
1. You will be crossing some lonely mountains, so make sure you have
enough petrol.
2. I play tennis.
The other two participants are 'Recipient' and 'Client'. They both have a benefactive role and
they represent a participant that is benefiting from the performance of the process. The
Recipient is one that goods are given to; the Client is one that services are done for. These
two participants are either come with preposition or without. The preposition (to) is with
'Recipient' and (for) with 'Client'. For example
1. She sent her best wishes to John. {to John is Recipient}.
2. 11- Fred bought a present for his wife. {for his wife is Client}
Finally, the last function of the participant which accompanies the material process clause is
the 'Attribute'. Although this function belongs to the 'relational' process clauses, it also enters
into the 'material' process clause. Halliday (2004) stated that "the Attribute may be used to
construe the resultant qualitative state of the Actor or Goal after the process has been
completed" (p.195). For instance
3. They stripped her clean of every bit of jewelers she ever had.
where clean is an 'Attribute' participant describing the resultant state of the Goal her. The
'Attribute' participant in material clause is always an optional added specification, while it is
an inherent part of a relational clause. As it is said previously, mental clauses represent the
inner world of experience. There are two types of participants related or accompanied with
mental process. They are called 'Senser' and 'Phenomenon'. For example:
1. Ade liked the gift
2. The gift pleased Ade.
Senser represents the one that ‘senses’, i.e., thinks, feels, wants or perceives (Halliday, 2004,
p. 201); as in the example above 'Ade'. Senser is the one which is interacting, thinking, etc. In
grammatical terms, Halliday (2004) refers to, 'Senser' as "the participant that is engaged in
the mental process is one that is referred to pronominally as he or she, not as it". The
participant in a mental clause should be human, while this feature is not required in material
clause. According to Eggins (2004), one "participant in the mental process clause must be a
conscious human participant" (p. 227).

8
The other main element in the mental process clause is called the ' Phenomenon'. The
phenomenon is that which is thought, felt, wanted or perceived by the 'Senser'. The set of
things that can take on this role in the clause is in fact wider than the set of possible
participants in a ‘material’ clause. It is not only a thing, but also an actor is a fact. In a
material clause, every participant is a thing; it is a phenomenon of our experience. It includes
our inner experience or imagination — some entity like (person, creature, institution, object,
substance or abstraction). These ‘things’ may
be the object of consciousness in a mental clause (Halliday, 2004) for example:
1. You recognize her? 16- I learned that lesson a long time ago.
2. She believed his cases.
In relational clauses, there are two inherent participants, attributive and identifying clauses. In
attributive clauses, the attribute is assigned to a participant who is called Carrier, e.g.
1. She is atrocious.
In this example, (she) is considered as a (Carrier) which means that she carries the attribute
(atrocious). In identifying clauses, they define a participant, they do not classify or ascribe
participant to attribute. For example:
2. The one in the back row must be you.
In this identifying clause, the one in the back row is identified while you is the identifier.
3. Sam is the treasurer.
4. Sam is the tall man.
In the first identifying clause, Sam is assigned by Treasurer a 'Value', while in the second
one Sam is identified by assigning a 'Token' to him. 'Token' is the participant (that which is
being defined). 'Value' is the participant (that which defines). So, in the first sentence Sam is
'Identified/Token' and the treasure is 'Identifier/Value'. In the second one, Sam represents as
'Identified/Value' and the tall man is 'Identifier/Token'.

In other words, "the identity either decodes the Token by reference to the Value or it encodes
the Value by reference to the Token" (Halliday, 2004). The behavioural process clauses
locate on the borderline between material and mental process and as we mentioned before,
"they are partly like the mental and partly like the material" (Halliday, 2004, p.250), which
means their meanings are in mid may between material on the one hand and mental on the
other. There are two participants with behavioural process (Behaver and Behavior). Halliday
says that the participant who is ‘behaving’, labeled Behaver associated, is typically a
conscious being, like the Senser". e.g.

9
 1. She is laughing.
In this example she is 'Behaver' and is laughing is behavioural process. While the behaviour
is dressed up as if it was a participant, is called 'Behaviour' (Halliday, 2004, p.251). For
example:
2. She sang a song
3. He gave a great yawn
In the verbal clause, there are four types of participants. The first one is the 'Sayer'; the person
who is speaking, which means that 'Sayer' is restricted or limited to the speaker or writer, e.g.
4. John said 'I am hungry'
In functional grammar, the example above consists of two clauses: primary clause 'john said'
and secondary clause 'I am hungry'. It functions as a secondary clause being either directly
quoted, as in ‘I am hungry’, or indirectly reported, as in 'he was hungry' in the following
example.
5. He said 'he was hungry'.
The primary clause represents the verbal one while the other may represent a process type of
any kind. The other participant function is 'Receiver'. It represents the person to whom the
process is directed. Halliday (2004) said that "The Receiver is the one to whom the saying is
directed"(p. 255). For example:
1. Tell me the whole truth?
2. Did you repeat that to your parents?
3. Describe to the court the scene of the accident?

The 'Verbiage' is the participant that matches to what is said, representing it as a class of
thing rather than as a report or quote. Verbiage could be either the content of what is said. For
example:
4. Can you explain the plan for me
Or it may be the name of the saying, e.g.
5. Let me ask you a question
Finally, the 'Target' is the fourth participant; this function occurs only in a sub-type of
‘verbal’ clause. This type construes the entity that is targeted by the process of saying. For
example:
6. He also accused Ali.
7. She always blamed him.

10
The last type of process which is called existential process has just only one participant.
Halliday (2004) claims that "The entity or event which is being said to exist is labeled,
simply, Existent"(p. 258). For example:
1. There was an old person of Dover.
2. There was a storm.
It is necessary to explain the units that realize the process, participant, and circumstance
elements of the clause which make distinct contributions to the modeling of a quantum of
change. The process and the participants involved in it explain complementary facets of the
change. These two facts are transience and permanence. It has been suggested that
'transience' is the experience of unfolding through time. 'Permanence' is the experience of
lasting through time and being located in (concrete or abstract) space. Thus participants are
relatively stable through time (Halliday, 2004, p.177). The following example is adopted
from Halliday to clarify the information that participants can take place in many processes.
1. During the first part of the nineteenth century, there was a lighthouse keeper who was
in charge of the lighthouse. His name was Felipe. He was a brave young man, very
dedicated to his work. He lived very happily in the lighthouse with his wife, Catalina,
and his little daughter Teresa. He loved them both very much.
In this example, there are many types of processes as in {there was ….} is process of
existence. But there was one participant in all the clauses.

4.0 Data Analysis

In this study, Niyi Osundare’s The Leader and the Led is analysed using Transitivity.
THE LEADER AND THE LED
By Niyi Osundare

The Lion [Actor] stakes his claim [Material]

To the leadership of the pack [Goal]

But [o] the Antelopes [Senser] remember [Mental]

The ferocious pounce of his paws [Phenomena]

The hyena [Sayer] says [Verbal] the crown [Target] is made for him [Receiver]
But [o] the Impalas [Behaviourer] shudder at [Behavioural] his lethal appetite [Behaviour]

11
The Giraffe [Senser] craves [Mental] a place [Phenomena] in the front [Circumstance]
But[o] his eyes [Carrier] are too far [Relational Attribution] from the ground [Circumstance]

When [circumstance] the Zebra [Sayer] says [Verbal] it’s his right to lead [Verbiage]
The pack [Actor] points [Material] to the duplicity of his stripes [Goal]

The Elephant [Actor] trudges [Material] into the power tussle [Attribute]
But [o] its colleagues [Behaver] dread [Behavioural] his trampling feet [Behaviour]

The warthog [Carrier] is [Relational Attribution] too ugly [Value]

The rhino [Carrier] too riotous [Value]

And [o] the pack [Actor] thrashes around [Material]

Like a snake without a head [Attribute]

“Our need calls for a hybrid of habits” [Verbiage]

Proclaims [Verbal] the Forest Sage,[Sayer]

“A little bit of a Lion [Verbiage]

A little bit of a Lamb [Verbiage]

Tough like a tiger, compassionate like a doe [Verbiage]

Transparent like a river, mysterious like a lake [Verbiage]

A leader [Senser] who knows [Mental] how to follow [Phenomena]

Followers [Senser] mindful of [Mental] their right to lead" [Phenomena]

4.1 Transitivity Analysis of Niyi Osundare’s The Leader and the Led
Material Mental Relational Behavioural Verbal Existential
Process Process Process Process Process Process
04 04 02 02 03 0

4.2 Percentages Processes

Processes Percentage

12
 Material 26.67%
Mental 26.67%
Relational 13.3%
Behavioural 13.3%
Verbal 20%
Existential 0%

The results of transitivity analysis about Niyi Osundare’s The Leader and the Led present
differences in the process types. As shown, Material and Mental processes
are the most common with percentage of 26% followed Verbal with 20%, then Relational and
Behavioural processes with 13.3%, and Existential processes with 0%.

5.0 Discussion
From the above analysis, it is clear that both Material and Mental processes are dominant in
the poem which demonstrate the claim each individual is asserting to the leadership of the
park. As a fable, it satirically illustrate the way leaders in Africa claim leadership positions,
trying every physical and mental struggle to attain the power. However, their relational and
behavioural attitudes are not up to the game. Al though they try, it does not match the
required effort put in place when claiming the political posts. Meanwhile, it is rampant to see
criticism, bullies and speeches against leaders but won’t be as loud as that of the contestants.
Existential is not present because nobody believes in the relevance of the other.

6.0 Conclusion
This study has critically examined Transitivity as a concept in Systemic Functional Grammar
of Halliday meant to analyse clauses in isolation and context. The study traced the root of
Transitivity to the Ideational function under metafunction, looked into the models of
Transitivity system, the processes and their semantic roles, analysed Niyi Osundare’s The
Leader and the Led using the concept and finally explained the outcome of analysis.

13
References
Banks, D. (2002). Systemic Functional Linguistics as a model for text analysis. Open Edition
Journal, Asp (online). 23–34. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.1584
Bartley, L. V. (2018). Putting transitivity to the test: a review of the Sydney and Cardiff
models.
Springer Open. 5(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0056-x
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. (1995). The functional analysis of English: a Hallidayan approach.
London: Arnold. Co-published New York: Oxford University Press.
Frontaine, L. (2013). Analysing English grammar: a systemic functional introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Queensland: Gerd
Stabler, AEE Publishing.
Gibbons, A. & Whiteley, S. (2022). Transitivity and Ideology. Contemporary Stylistics.
Edinburgh: University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748682782-014
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd
ed). London: Hodder Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through
meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward
Arnold.

14
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed). London: Edward
Arnold.
Nwankwo, S. C. (2023). Halliday’s Transitivity system and Clause Analysis in The Daily
Sun
Newspaper. ResearchGate Online. 1-23.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369693906
Rashid, B. N. & Jameel, A. F. (2017). A linguistic analysis of Halliday's systemic functional
theory in political texts. Al-Uztaz. 220(1), 1-24.

15